Case law

United States v. Eugene Edwin Hairrell

521 F.2d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 25, 1975

If one charged with possession of contraband avoids its confiscation and then is acquitted he gains no immunity from prosecution for his continued possession of the proscribed material. … The charges of possession and transfer clearly related to separate offenses and are not multiplicitous.

John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Crossplaintiffs-Appellants v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. James M. Pennington, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Harry P. Stansberry, Individually and T/a Stansberry Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Jesse C. Fesler and Nola Fesler, Individually and T/a Fesler Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Corss John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. U. R. Arnold and Mrs. U. R. Arnold, Individually and T/a Arnold Strip Mining Company, a Partnership, and the Arnold Coal Company, Inc., Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Defendant- John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. Tennco, Incorporated, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross John L. Lewis, Josephine Roche and Henry G. Schmidt, as Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund v. E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a E. C. McPherson Coal Company, M. W. Norquest and E. C. McPherson Individually and T/a McPherson Coal Company, Cross v. United Mine Workers of America, Cross Dean Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, W. R. Parton D/B/A W. R. Parton Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America

400 F.2d 806 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 9, 1968

The Court concluded that the combination of businessmen violated the Sherman Act unless it was immunized by participation by the union. … This clearly would be an impermissible ground upon which to tax the Union all the costs in these cases.

Michael Meyer v. City of Cincinnati

943 F.2d 52 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

B. 8 Plaintiff's remaining claim for malicious prosecution against Leugers was dismissed on the grounds of "qualified immunity," since probable cause for plaintiff's arrest existed under Ohio law, which provides: 9 (A) No … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (Law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity in the performance of their official functions). 15 We agree with the district court that a police officer in Leugers' position

Ralph Stephens Baze, Jr. v. Philip Parker, Warden, Kentucky State Penitentiary

371 F.3d 310 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jun 9, 2004

AEDPA requires that a court considering a habeas petition limit its analysis to the law as it was “clearly established” under Supreme Court precedent at the time of the state court decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). … The judge declined to do so, finding Wagoner qualified based on his responses in the individual voir dire.

Everson v. Board of Education

123 F. App'x 221 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

association.5 Government officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability for civil damages so long as their actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … ; and (2) “if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions,” was the right clearly established? Id.

Jesse Rice and Bricelia Rice v. Raymond Gercar and Michael Carosielli

77 F.3d 483 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 15, 1996

The District Court denied both Sergeant Gercar's and Officer Carosielli's motions for summary judgment on the basis that they violated clearly established law, and thus, were not entitled to qualified immunity, and granted … of clearly established law.

Damon Raines v. United States

898 F.3d 680 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 31, 2018

conviction qualified under the ACCA's enumerated-crimes clause. … The Supreme Court clearly stated that its decision in Johnson "does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act's definition of a violent felony." Ibid.

William Virgil v. City of Newport

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 19, 2018

Asserting qualified immunity, the individual police officers moved to dismiss. … The district court found the officers ineligible for qualified immunity because clearly established law at that time required them to disclose such evidence. The officers appeal.

William J. O'Hara III v. John T. Wigginton Wayne Dunn Al C. Parke and Fred Cowan

24 F.3d 823 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 1994

Accordingly, states and their officials are immune from such suits in federal court, absent the state’s unequivocal consent. Id. at 99-101 , 104 S.Ct. at 907-08 . … In reviewing a habeas proceeding, factual findings by the district court are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Warner v.

Louis Cale v. J.R. Johnson, Warden, F.C.I., James Wahl, Food Service Administrator, F.C.I., Milan, and Melvin Persky, Inmate and Clerk to James Wahl

861 F.2d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 17, 1988

Moreover, even if requiring them to defend respondent’s suit might inhibit their efforts to perform their official duties, the qualified immunity accorded them under Butz v. … The first reason is clearly untenable: judicial sensibilities should play no part in the disposition of suitors’ rights.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McCall Printing Corp.

633 F.2d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 24, 1980

But Teamsters also held that 703(h) does not immunize a seniority system which has been negotiated or maintained for illegal purposes. Id. at 356 , 97 S.Ct. at 1865. … Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint clearly alleges that McCall Company has a seniority system which has been maintained so as to produce a discriminatory effect on its Black employees.

United States v. Wood

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Apr 17, 2000

Wood 3 robbery, however, the offense still clearly meets Wilson’s convictions for crimes of violence. The probation officer second criteria. … adopted the probation officer’s establish that the offense involves the “use, attempted use, or recommendation, finding that Wood had two prior threatened use of physical force” may the court then look at convictions

Brooks v. Tennessee

626 F.3d 878 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

A state-court decision is considered “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law” if the two are “diametrically different, opposite in character or nature, or mutually opposed.” Williams v. … Alternatively, to be deemed an “unreasonable application of ... clearly established Federal law,” a state-court decision on the merits must be “objectively unreasonable,” not simply incorrect. Id. at 409, 412 .

United States v. Cara Woods, Jr.

544 F.2d 242 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 2, 1977

Burt said that she then asked if Blair could be given immunity in return for her testimony, but that they were told that Blair would not be given immunity unless he testified himself. … George BLAIR’s source of supply been identified or established.

Aneta Lumaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales

462 F.3d 574 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Sep 6, 2006

Lumaj first contends that the BIA’s streamlined review process, specifically single-judge review and the clearly erroneous standard for reviewing factual determinations, violated Lumaj’s constitutional right to due process … Thus, she does not qualify as a “refugee” under the INA and is not entitled to asylum.

Mencer v. Princeton Square Apartments

228 F.3d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 3, 2000

The trial court accorded the testers’ evidence no weight, and this conclusion is not clearly erroneous. … Plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination. The Menc-ers were not financially qualified to rent according to defendant’s policies.

Dendinger v. State of OH

207 F. App'x 521 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 14, 2006

Dendinger can establish neither. … On appeal, BCI & I again neglected to brief or argue the immunity issue with respect to the IIED claim. A state may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity through its litigation conduct. Lapides v.

James Bryant v. International Fruit Products Company, Inc.

793 F.2d 118 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Jul 10, 1986

The 1959 agreement created a “qualified pension plan” under the Revenue Act of 1954. … However, this treatment ignores other language in the two sections that clearly does prohibit reversion.

Smith Wholesale Company, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

477 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Feb 27, 2007

We nonetheless would be remiss if we were to suggest that market-share discounts are immune from Robinson-Patman scrutiny. … The Shreve Court held that, under the circumstances, the plaintiff's president clearly understood that the plaintiff would not receive the discount.

Clay v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

501 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Aug 31, 2007

To meet this burden, “the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons” for its decision. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. … As explained above, UPS’s citations to the record do not “clearly set forth, through ... admissible evidence, the reasons” why Moss was ineligible for the Mid- *706 dleburg Heights position.